To be honest, I am suprised at all this. But , as someone who believes in the principle of looking at observable reality and changing my mind on things when I need to, I take your point.
actually, it would be very nice if we could have a common ground that we can communicate through, because I get the impression that a lot of Creationists simply don't get what evolotion is really about.
For me, it is populations that evolve, not individuals. Evolution is about the origin of Species, not the origin of Life - that is Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Ii can accept the concept of Newtonian Physics, and would argue that if you say 'Darwinism' then you mean nothing more or less than what darwin proposed inhis lifetime. you are not talking punctuated equilibrium or genetics, because these were not Darwinian concepts.
Tell me, do biological evolutionists or even chaps like that awfully aggressive atheist who wrote 'The God Delusion' use the term ' Evolutionist'?
Also, yes, Behe is someone who does qualify as a scientist, and yet he has failed to convince a Conservative Christian judge that ID is in fact a scientific theory. Even so, even a lay person like me can accept that he has a certain claim to real credibility that Hovind and others lack.Are there more people like him within the Creationist community that you can name?
Is there a proper Creationist theory out there - a real detailed explanation of all the data in terms of the Creationist understanding of the world, on a par with Darwin's "Origin of Species"? As someone who is willing to discuss with anyone on the other side of the aisle, ii am always willing to concede a point if it is truly shown to be the case, as you have done with 'Darwinism' as a proper scientific term.
As I understand it, science works when one can explain phenomenon by a proposed mechanism. to me, the only logical explanation is that natural forces created the world around us. yet, natural forces cannot explian values, ethics and such questions as why we are here. for that , we must turn to philosophy and theology. therefore I would call myself a Theistic Evolutionist. I think tha god did it, but using the natural forces in the universe, not a huge amount of miracles to produce the world around us.
But that's based on what I know so far. you show me something new, and I might well change my mind.
no subject
But , as someone who believes in the principle of looking at observable reality and changing my mind on things when I need to, I take your point.
actually, it would be very nice if we could have a common ground that we can communicate through, because I get the impression that a lot of Creationists simply don't get what evolotion is really about.
For me, it is populations that evolve, not individuals.
Evolution is about the origin of Species, not the origin of Life - that is Abiogenesis, not Evolution.
Ii can accept the concept of Newtonian Physics, and would argue that if you say 'Darwinism' then you mean nothing more or less than what darwin proposed inhis lifetime. you are not talking punctuated equilibrium or genetics, because these were not Darwinian concepts.
Tell me, do biological evolutionists or even chaps like that awfully aggressive atheist who wrote 'The God Delusion' use the term ' Evolutionist'?
Also, yes, Behe is someone who does qualify as a scientist, and yet he has failed to convince a Conservative Christian judge that ID is in fact a scientific theory. Even so, even a lay person like me can accept that he has a certain claim to real credibility that Hovind and others lack.Are there more people like him within the Creationist community that you can name?
Is there a proper Creationist theory out there - a real detailed explanation of all the data in terms of the Creationist understanding of the world, on a par with Darwin's "Origin of Species"? As someone who is willing to discuss with anyone on the other side of the aisle, ii am always willing to concede a point if it is truly shown to be the case, as you have done with 'Darwinism' as a proper scientific term.
As I understand it, science works when one can explain phenomenon by a proposed mechanism. to me, the only logical explanation is that natural forces created the world around us. yet, natural forces cannot explian values, ethics and such questions as why we are here. for that , we must turn to philosophy and theology. therefore I would call myself a Theistic Evolutionist. I think tha god did it, but using the natural forces in the universe, not a huge amount of miracles to produce the world around us.
But that's based on what I know so far. you show me something new, and I might well change my mind.